cheaper, faster, Better

[nikyname]

Basically, the challenge is to have a very light and cheap rocket to go to other planets/moons.

Scoring is carried out in this fashion:  the cost of the rocket = score  

lowest score wins

going into negative points is ok.

orbit: -150 pt.

mun landing -575 pt.

minmus landing : -500 pt.

landing on another planet -10,000 pt.

returning to kerbin from:

orbit : -150 pt.

mun : -575 pt.

minmus : -500 pt.

another planet -10,000 pt.

alt + f12 : +99999999999 pt.

if you go somewere not on this list, tell me were, then I will score it appropriately 

 

scoreboard:

(nobody yet, I am going to attempt this challenge myself)

Edited April 15, 2016 by nikyname

[Darnok]

IMO you should have fixed payload... like 1t or 10t.

[Streetwind]

My first thought on this: are the score deductions cumulative? In other words, when I land on the Mun, do I subtract only 100 points, or do I subtract points for everything from suborbit to Mun landing?

[nikyname]

do you mean, I Landed on mun -100 i landed on minmus 100+125= -215 if you mean that, no.

this is how it works, landed on mun 1,000$ - 100 = 900$ landed on minmus 900 - 125 = 775$ ect.

 

5 minutes ago, Darnok said:

IMO you should have fixed payload... like 1t or 10t.

IDK if I will change that, mabey

[Streetwind]

No... I meant that, in order to land on the Mun, I must first achieve a suborbital trajectory on Kerbin ('cause I am launching from there), then achieve orbit around Kerbin, then perform a transfer that results in a Mun flyby, then capture into Mun orbit, and THEN land. So I'm technically eligible for points for all of the above, not just the landing award. Unless, you make a rule that says "only the largest single point value counts".

What I'm asking is if this is intentional or not.

Edited March 30, 2016 by Streetwind

[nikyname]

you receive points for all the things you do, so yes you would get points for suborbital orbit and landing, yes this is intentional.

looking forward to seeing your attempt!

Edited March 30, 2016 by nikyname

[Streetwind]

46 minutes ago, nikyname said:

looking forward to seeing your attempt!

Perhaps, we will see... though you'd first have to clarify something else. Weight of rocket in what unit?

Also, though I was seriously considering to exploit that loophole - you need to switch the point values for Mun and Minmus.

[nikyname]

38 minutes ago, Streetwind said:

Perhaps, we will see... though you'd first have to clarify something else. Weight of rocket in what unit?

Also, though I was seriously considering to exploit that loophole - you need to switch the point values for Mun and Minmus.

the weight is in pounds, so your going to have to convert it from tons to pounds.

and I changed the point values, Thanks for the input! 

[SpaceplaneAddict]

Roger flight! Preppring the moho ion lander.....

[nikyname]

33 minutes ago, SpaceplaneAddict said:

Roger flight! Preppring the moho ion lander.....

DAAAAAAAAANG SON!

Edited March 30, 2016 by nikyname

[DankMeme101]

16 minutes ago, nikyname said:

DAAAAAAAAANG SON!

Niky, I am your dad

[nikyname]

6 minutes ago, DankMeme101 said:

Niky, I am your dad

no you are not. stalker.

[Streetwind]

3 hours ago, nikyname said:

the weight is in pounds, so your going to have to convert it from tons to pounds.

No offense, but really? Imperial units, when the entire game is in metric? That's an exceptionally bad choice. But ok, I guess.
 

Meanwhile, on my drive home, I mulled over the scoring system and realized that it doesn't work. Like, you can't get any meaningful comparison between vessels out of it, at all. I'm going to submit an entry here and illustrate why:

Exhibit 1, the spacecraft in the VAB. Yes, that is all of it there is. The fuel tanks aren't even full; their fill level is hand-adjusted to just the necessary amount. Total mass is 464 kg, which, in antiquated units, is 1022,94 pounds. Cost is 864.7 funds. Total score is thus 1887.64.

Exhibit 2: Goin' up! This rocket will briefly hit an apoapsis of ~93km, then instantly lose control after the engine burns out, and flip out wildly. This causes enough drag to pull the apoapsis back down a good ways. But nor far enough...

Exhibit 3: Suborbital flight achieved. I mean, technically the rules didn't even stipulate that my final apoapsis had to be outside the atmosphere. If all I needed was to have my apoapsis outside of the atmosphere just once at any point during the flight, I wouldn' even have needed two fuel tanks. But I decided to interpretate the more difficult solution in this case.

Final score: 1887.64 (initial) - 10 (suborbital) = 1877.64 points.

This is the lowest score possible to achieve under this scoring system. There exists literally no way to beat it. The cost and mass of any vessel will grow far faster than the milestone rewards grow, even cumulative. Therefore, i have just won this challenge, and no one else needs to apply.

 

All in all, nikyname, I think your challenge (as well as the other two similar ones you posted at the same time) would have benefited significantly from you reading the stickied "Challenge Submission Guide" here in this forum before posting it. You'll find that there's a lot more to creating a good, viable challenge than having a quick idea and tossing it on the forums with a small set of rules that generate more questions than entries.

[Jetski]

Interesting.  This ship weighs 90T (180000 lbs), costs 263347 funds.  So starts at 443347.

Suborbital and orbital on every planet and moon, so 17 * 35 = -595.  

Landed on Mun and Minmus so -300

Returned to Kerbin from every planet and moon so 17*500 = -8500

Landed on 7 planets other than Mun/Minmus/Kerbin so 7*500 = -3500

total score 443347 -12895 = 430452 for nearly a Grand Tour.  

I concur the scoring system is nonsense

 

Edited March 30, 2016 by Jetski

[nikyname]

On 3/30/2016 at 2:28 PM, Streetwind said:

No offense, but really? Imperial units, when the entire game is in metric? That's an exceptionally bad choice. But ok, I guess.
 

Meanwhile, on my drive home, I mulled over the scoring system and realized that it doesn't work. Like, you can't get any meaningful comparison between vessels out of it, at all. I'm going to submit an entry here and illustrate why:

Exhibit 1, the spacecraft in the VAB. Yes, that is all of it there is. The fuel tanks aren't even full; their fill level is hand-adjusted to just the necessary amount. Total mass is 464 kg, which, in antiquated units, is 1022,94 pounds. Cost is 864.7 funds. Total score is thus 1887.64.

Exhibit 2: Goin' up! This rocket will briefly hit an apoapsis of ~93km, then instantly lose control after the engine burns out, and flip out wildly. This causes enough drag to pull the apoapsis back down a good ways. But nor far enough...

Exhibit 3: Suborbital flight achieved. I mean, technically the rules didn't even stipulate that my final apoapsis had to be outside the atmosphere. If all I needed was to have my apoapsis outside of the atmosphere just once at any point during the flight, I wouldn' even have needed two fuel tanks. But I decided to interpretate the more difficult solution in this case.

Final score: 1887.64 (initial) - 10 (suborbital) = 1877.64 points.

This is the lowest score possible to achieve under this scoring system. There exists literally no way to beat it. The cost and mass of any vessel will grow far faster than the milestone rewards grow, even cumulative. Therefore, i have just won this challenge, and no one else needs to apply.

 

All in all, nikyname, I think your challenge (as well as the other two similar ones you posted at the same time) would have benefited significantly from you reading the stickied "Challenge Submission Guide" here in this forum before posting it. You'll find that there's a lot more to creating a good, viable challenge than having a quick idea and tossing it on the forums with a small set of rules that generate more questions than entries.

yikes... this challenge is going down  hill, oops. 

[Jetski]

1 hour ago, nikyname said:

yikes... this challenge is going down  hill, oops. 

Just put some more thought into the scoring, edit the OP, and try again

[max_creative]

Hey did you see some of turbo pumped videos? He's not on the forum but look at stuff like this:

 

[Turf]

10 hours ago, max_creative said:

Hey did you see some of turbo pumped videos? He's not on the forum but look at stuff like this:

 

IF crewed rocket is mandatory in this challenge, then this video would have won the challenge.

I can also beat you all, by simply placing a cubic octagonal strut and won the challenge.

[nikyname]

16 hours ago, Anbang11 said:

IF crewed rocket is mandatory in this challenge, then this video would have won the challenge.

I can also beat you all, by simply placing a cubic octagonal strut and won the challenge.

amazing! wow! incredible! 

also your rocket has to be a rocket, not a piece of steel sitting on a launch pad

[Turf]

On 5/4/2016 at 2:44 AM, nikyname said:

amazing! wow! incredible! 

also your rocket has to be a rocket, not a piece of steel sitting on a launch pad

Well that's easy.

add a Stayputnik Mk. 1 and a Sepratron I. You probably don't need a proof that a simple Sepratron I and a Stayputnik Mk. 1 cannot even achieve suborbital.

I won.

Edited April 14, 2016 by Anbang11